Why we regulate bidding agreements

[Adam Wildavsky]

I see no reason to prohibit a method simply because it is effective. On the contrary, if anything such methods ought to be encouraged. I see these as good reasons to regulate:

1. A method is difficult or impossible to properly disclose to the opponents.
   
2. A method is so time-consuming to defend against that allowing it would interfere with the orderly progression of the game.
   
3. A method requires an inordinate amount of advance preparation to defend against.
4. A method is likely to be effective mainly due to unfamiliarity rather than merit.
   

In cases where we are unsure as to whether to allow a method we have the option of requiring a prepared written defense, allowing the opponents to refer to their own defensive method at the table, removing seeding rights from a pair, or any combination of these.

I say all this because, in the matter of light third seat one-level openings, I see no difficulty in defending against them. They are expected whether opened seldom or often. As an opponent I do want to know whether such a psyche is likely to be based on a long or short and weak or strong suit, and what a pass by third hand implies. Once I am properly informed I do not consider myself at a disadvantage. Does anyone feel differently? If so please post and explain your concern.

[Bill Pollack]

Good list, Adam.  I agree.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Howard Weinstein]

well framed.  thanks!

Howie

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Compton]

I agree w 95% Adam, well presented. 

Chris 

--

[Frank Nickell]

Well put.

--

[Kit Woolsey]

I think everybody pretty much agrees with what Adam has said here. Let's do it.

>
> I see no reason to prohibit a method simply because it is effective. On the
> contrary, if anything such methods ought to be encouraged. I see these as
> good reasons to regulate:
>

> 1. A method is difficult or impossible to properly disclose to the
> opponents.
> 2. A method is so time-consuming to defend against that allowing it

> would interfere with the orderly progression of the game.

> 3. A method requires an inordinate amount of advance preparation to
> defend against.
> 4. A method is likely to be effective mainly due to unfamiliarity rather

[Al Hollander]

Playing devil’s advocate:

 

a)       Who determines whether or not a method requires a recommended defense

a.       What happens if none is provided

b)      Who determines whether the required prepared written defense meets an undocumented minimum requirement

a.       What happens when that minimum is not met

c)       Who determines if the method has been sufficiently disclosed [by what deadline?]

a.       What happens if disclosure is deemed insufficient for effective advanced preparation

d)      What happens if the opponents’ method is unknown until play begins

 

 

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky
Sent: Friday 14 October 2016 11:00
To: usbf-ittc <usbf...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Why we regulate bidding agreements

 

I see no reason to prohibit a method simply because it is effective. On the contrary, if anything such methods ought to be encouraged. I see these as good reasons to regulate:

1. A method is difficult or impossible to properly disclose to the opponents.

1. A method is so time-consuming to defend against that allowing it would interfere with the orderly progression of the game.

1. A method requires an inordinate amount of advance preparation to defend against.

1. A method is likely to be effective mainly due to unfamiliarity rather than merit.

In cases where we are unsure as to whether to allow a method we have the option of requiring a prepared written defense, allowing the opponents to refer to their own defensive method at the table, removing seeding rights from a pair, or any combination of these.

 

I say all this because, in the matter of light third seat one-level openings, I see no difficulty in defending against them. They are expected whether opened seldom or often. As an opponent I do want to know whether such a psyche is likely to be based on a long or short and weak or strong suit, and what a pass by third hand implies. Once I am properly informed I do not consider myself at a disadvantage. Does anyone feel differently? If so please post and explain your concern.

--

[Adam Wildavsky]

All worthwhile questions. When using ACBL or WBF regulations we can piggyback on their work in these areas. When we regulate differently we need to set up mechanisms of our own.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Compton]

Jan, don't our current conditions have a mechanism in place to record systems, convention cards, and system summary forms?

Chris 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Josh Sher]

We are not talking about light 3rd suit openers. We are talking about light 3rd seat openers where the shape can be somewhat arbitrary, and the bid suit really doesn't promise length (can be that sides weakest suit). I.e. A fert. Now, I am all for allowing ferts, but I am against only letting the precision players play ferts...

Josh Sher 


--------
The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils,
light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your
hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp
at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes,
certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest
things in life. - Robert Louis Stevenson



Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
or what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning

--

[erod...@tampabay.rr.com]

Josh,

Your logic seems faulty on two counts:

1) A Fert is definitely weak, not

   just possibly weak. 

2) Those who use a natural system, or a nebulous club, can do the same thing as Percision players,

even if we consider a possibly ultralight third seat opening bid as a Fert. 

E

Sent from my iPhone

[Josh Sher]

Eric,

I love linguistic arguments. What's is the difference between 

A. weak, arbitrary shape. And 

B. weak arbitrary shape with some stronger hands thrown in? 

If you think that the term Fert is not used by anyone to mean B, fine, whatever. It's still a HUM, and you are not proposing to allow it in other seats, nor are are proposing to allow it it in 3rd seat, unless you happen to be promising 2 cards, which you conveniently do! Nice, a light lead director when you didn't even promise the suit. It's obvious that the only purpose of it is purely destructive.

I actually also completely disagree with you with the definition of weak. Weak depends on context. If you have a balanced 7 count, and your partner opened a strong 2C, you are not weak, and you are not going to make a bid that shows weakness. After, P-P when partner is limited to 10 and your expected hand strength is about 13, I would with great confidence call 0-13 weak. It does tell partner that we don't have game, and the opps might have game. That seems like a good definition of weak....

Yes, you may throw in a few rare unbalanced hand types with are above average strength given the auction, but I don't know why that changes anything. Under pressure, partner is not going to play you for an unbalnced 14-15 count.

Josh Sher 


--------
The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils,
light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your
hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp
at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes,
certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest
things in life. - Robert Louis Stevenson



Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
or what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning

[Jan Martel]

I’m not sure what you mean by “record” - we have all of the system summary forms & convention cards on the website, where they are accessible. If someone things a SSF or convention card isn’t adequate when it’s filed, they can ask for it to be reviewed by our conventions committee.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

We are talking about bidding NV after out partner and our right hand opponent has passed. LHO has the knowledge that his partner is a passed hand which is much muck different than a FERT. FERTS occur in cases where no one has passed. Anyone who plays 14-16  first seat and opens all 11 HCP is similarly situated. Opening all 11's is what creates the third seat equity. 

Chris 

[Josh Sher]

I open all 10's and I don't get that equity, because my 1D opener might be shorter than yours...(but in fact my 1D is more balanced than yours also, since I use a natural 2D opener showing 6+ cards...)

Anyway, I am in China, and it's time for bed :)

Josh Sher 


--------
The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils,
light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your
hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp
at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes,
certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest
things in life. - Robert Louis Stevenson



Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
or what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning

[steve robinson]

Does this mean that playing Standard, you can play a 1club opening in third seat non-vulnerable to show a non-opening bid with any distribution? (all other openers promise opening bids).  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Make every card count

[Chris Compton]

I think, but am not sure, that under the proposed rules ... 1C could be 2+ (or singleton A,K, or Q) but that we want tendencies described more fully in some manner. 

Chris 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Adam Wildavsky]

I doubt you'd enjoy good results, since it leaves you no call when you hold a real 1c opener. But were it up to me I would allow it. It does not seem difficult or time-consuming to defend against. No one has yet suggested that it would be. I'd be happy to entertain an argument as to why such a method would in fact require substantial preparation to defend.